CTNF 19/100,581 CTNF 94914 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Application Status Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a reference coordinate system calculation unit that calculates…, a mobile object coordinate system calculation unit that calculates…, a specification unit that specifies…” in claims 1 and 15, “an angular velocity detection unit that detects…, an acceleration detection unit that detects…, an angular velocity compensation unit that calculates…”, in claim 8, and “a bias estimation unit that estimates…”. Corresponding structure for the angular velocity detection unit, acceleration detection unit is found on paragraphs 0019 and 0038. However, “a reference coordinate system calculation unit that calculates…, a mobile object coordinate system calculation unit that calculates…, a specification unit that specifies…”, “an angular velocity compensation unit that calculates…”, and “a bias estimation unit that estimates…” invoke 35U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim . Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claims 1, 14, and 15 lines 9-10, the recited limitation “at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the reference coordinate system” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to at least one of the acceleration and velocity of the mobile object of the reference coordinate system or if this is a different acceleration and velocity of the reference coordinate system? In claim 5 line 22 , the recited limitation “a velocity of the mobile object” is indefinite. it is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the velocity of the mobile object or if this is a different velocity”. In claim 8 line 4 , the recited limitation “the velocity of the reference coordinate system” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the velocity of the mobile object of the reference coordinate system or if this is a different velocity of the reference coordinate system? Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-13 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. 101 Analysis Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category Independent claims 1, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes). 101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite calculating at least one of an acceleration and a velocity of a mobile object in a reference coordinate system on a basis of inertial navigation calculation; calculating at least one of an acceleration and a velocity of a mobile object coordinate system that is a coordinate system of the mobile object from at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the reference coordinate system; specifying a rotation component or an absolute azimuth on a basis of at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the mobile object coordinate system and reference information of at least one of an acceleration and a velocity serving as a non-holonomic constraint condition that constrains a degree of freedom of at least one of six axes related to an attitude and a velocity of the mobile object. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a calculation unit, a mobile object coordinate system calculation unit”, and “a specification unit”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as inertial navigation data, acceleration data, velocity data, non-holonomic constraint condition data could calculate at least one of an acceleration and a velocity of a mobile object in a reference coordinate system on a basis of inertial navigation calculation; calculate at least one of an acceleration and a velocity of a mobile object coordinate system that is a coordinate system of the mobile object from at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the reference coordinate system; and specify a rotation component or an absolute azimuth on a basis of at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the mobile object coordinate system and reference information of at least one of an acceleration and a velocity serving as a non-holonomic constraint condition that constrains a degree of freedom of at least one of six axes related to an attitude and a velocity of the mobile object. The mere nominal recitation of “a calculation unit, a mobile object coordinates system calculation unit”, and “a specification unit” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes). 101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of a reference coordinate system calculation unit, a mobile object coordinate system calculation unit, a specification unit; and a program. These additional limitation(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No). 101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well ‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No). Dependent claims 2-13 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 15 are directed to a program which can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Examiner suggests amending the claims to specify that the computer readable medium is a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mori et al (US 20200318971 A1) . With respect to claim 1, Mori discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a reference coordinate system calculation unit that calculates at least one of an acceleration and a velocity of a mobile object in a reference coordinate system on a basis of inertial navigation calculation (see at least [0013], [0026], [0028-0029], [0041], [0046], [0051-0055], [0089-0093], [0102], [0116-0117], [0133-0139], [0137-0139], and [0143]) ; a mobile object coordinate system calculation unit that calculates at least one of an acceleration and a velocity of a mobile object coordinate system that is a coordinate system of the mobile object from at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the reference coordinate system (see at least [0013], [0026], [0028-0029], [0041], [0046], [0051-0055], [0089-0093], [0102], [0116-0117], [0133-0139], [0137-0139], and [0143]) ; and a specification unit that specifies a rotation component or an absolute azimuth on a basis of at least one of the acceleration and the velocity of the mobile object coordinate system and reference information of at least one of an acceleration and a velocity serving as a non-holonomic constraint condition that constrains a degree of freedom of at least one of six axes related to an attitude and a velocity of the mobile object (see at least [0013], [0026], [0030-0034], [0041-0045], [0047-0050], [0054-0056], [0091-0094], [0103], [0122-0123], [0131-0135], and [0137]) . With respect to claim 14 , it is an information processing method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective information apparatus claim 1. As such, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective information apparatus claim 1 and is incorporated herein. With respect to claim 15 , it is a program claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective information apparatus claim 1. As such, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective information apparatus claim 1 and is incorporated herein . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al (US 20200318971 A1) in view of Psiaki et al (US 20110238307 A1) . With respect to claim 2 , Mori discloses wherein the specification unit specifies the rotation component or the absolute azimuth on a basis of the reference information of at least one of the velocity and the acceleration satisfying the non-holonomic constraint condition (see at least [0013], [0026], [0029], [0041-0045], [0047-0050], [0054-0056], [0103], [0122-0123], [0131-0133], and [0137]) . However, Mori do not specifically disclose wherein the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which at least one of a velocity and an acceleration in a predetermined direction in the mobile object coordinate system becomes a predetermined value. Psiaki teaches wherein the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which at least one of a velocity and an acceleration in a predetermined direction in the mobile object coordinate system becomes a predetermined value (see at least [0010-0011] and [0143]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Psiaki wherein the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which at least one of a velocity and an acceleration in a predetermined direction in the mobile object coordinate system becomes a predetermined value. This would be done to improve navigating under jamming or signal obstruction and high vehicle dynamic conditions (see Psiaki para 0002). With respect to claim 3 , Mori do not specifically disclose wherein the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which at least one of a velocity and an acceleration in at least one of a forward direction of the mobile object and a lateral direction perpendicular to the forward direction in the mobile object coordinate system becomes a predetermined value. Psiaki teaches wherein the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which at least one of a velocity and an acceleration in at least one of a forward direction of the mobile object and a lateral direction perpendicular to the forward direction in the mobile object coordinate system becomes a predetermined value (see at least [0010-0011] and [0143]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Psiaki wherein the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which at least one of a velocity and an acceleration in at least one of a forward direction of the mobile object and a lateral direction perpendicular to the forward direction in the mobile object coordinate system becomes a predetermined value. This would be done to improve navigating under jamming or signal obstruction and high vehicle dynamic conditions (see Psiaki para 0002). With respect to claim 4 , Mori discloses wherein the specification unit specifies the rotation component or the absolute azimuth on a basis of the reference information that the velocity in the lateral direction satisfying the non-holonomic constraint condition becomes 0 (see at least [0013], [0026], [0029], [0041-0045], [0047-0050], [0054-0056], [0103], [0122-0123], [0131-0133], and [0137]). However, Mori do not specifically disclose wherein the mobile object includes a drive wheel, the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which a velocity in a lateral direction perpendicular to a traveling direction in the mobile object coordinate system, the lateral direction being a rotation axis direction of the drive wheel, becomes 0. Psiaki teaches wherein the mobile object includes a drive wheel, the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which a velocity in a lateral direction perpendicular to a traveling direction in the mobile object coordinate system, the lateral direction being a rotation axis direction of the drive wheel, becomes 0 (see at least [0010-0011] and [0143]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Psiaki wherein the mobile object includes a drive wheel, the non-holonomic constraint condition includes a constraint condition in which a velocity in a lateral direction perpendicular to a traveling direction in the mobile object coordinate system, the lateral direction being a rotation axis direction of the drive wheel, becomes 0. This would be done to improve navigating under jamming or signal obstruction and high vehicle dynamic conditions (see Psiaki para 0002). Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claims 5-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph and 35 USC 101, set forth in this office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 2 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 3 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 4 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 5 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 6 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 7 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 8 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 9 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 10 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 11 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 12 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 13 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 14 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 15 Art Unit: 3667 Application/Control Number: 19/100,581 Page 16 Art Unit: 3667
Prosecution Insights